Some Race Results Matter More Than Others

By Stuart Rothenberg

This year, it’s harder than ever to distinguish what really matters from what doesn’t. Special situations are adding to the confusion, as is a fickle public, which is showing a willingness to change its positions in the blink of an eye.

In Hawaii’s special Congressional election to fill the opening created by the resignation of Democratic Rep. Neil Abercrombie, Republican Charles Djou certainly looks headed for an upset victory over two Democrats, former Rep. Ed Case, who has already represented the other half of the state in Congress, and state Senate President Colleen Hanabusa, who has been described by the local media as “the candidate of the Democratic Party establishment.”

With Djou leading in polls and local Democrats unable to agree to support a single candidate in the election, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has announced that it won’t spend any more resources on the race, which it now thinks is unwinnable.

That’s a stunning decision given the Democratic nature of the district, but it reflects the DCCC’s frustration with the race — and particularly with the state’s two Senators, who remain bitter about Case’s 2006 Democratic primary challenge to Sen. Daniel Akaka and have refused to encourage Hanabusa to exit the race.

Since the two Democrats are effectively dividing the Democratic vote and allowing Djou to win with far less than a majority of the vote, the outcome doesn’t say much of anything about November. The outcome isn’t irrelevant, but it certainly isn’t an indicator of things to come.

The special election in Pennsylvania’s 12th district is a far more important event, since it’s a head-to-head contest in a Democratic part of the state. But while Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry won the district narrowly in 2004 and Al Gore carried it more comfortably in 2000, Barack Obama lost it narrowly in 2008.

This is the kind of district where voters could use the special election as an opportunity to send a message of dissatisfaction about the Obama presidency and the Democratic Congressional agenda.

Republican Tim Burns is about as strong a candidate as Republicans could have hoped for. I interviewed him months ago as well as in late April, and I found him to be a more poised and polished candidate than I did during his first visit.

Given the large Democratic registration advantage in the district and the district’s strong support for the late Rep. John Murtha (D), Democrat Mark Critz, who was an aide to Murtha, should have an advantage in the race. A Burns victory would be a bad sign for Democrats for the fall.

Recent events in Utah certainly were noteworthy but not as instructive as the media coverage would suggest.

Nominating conventions are usually dominated by activists and ideologues, and purists at both the state GOP convention and the Democrats’ 3rd district convention showed their muscle, if not their brains.

Republican delegates denied Sen. Bob Bennett even the right to go to a primary to win renomination, and Democrats in the 2nd district forced Rep. Jim Matheson into a primary with a more liberal opponent who criticized the Congressman’s vote against health care reform.

Conventions produce different outcomes than primaries, so the results in Utah say more about the process than the voters. But the results are a reminder that the ideologues are particularly intolerant and vociferous this cycle.

Finally, the dramatic changes in the Democratic Senate primary in Pennsylvania, the Republican Senate primary in Florida and the GOP gubernatorial primary in California are worth remembering throughout the cycle.

Rep. Joe Sestak’s campaign seemed very much stalled until a single brilliant TV ad jump-started it and changed the Democratic Senate race in Pennsylvania fundamentally. Using video of party-switching Sen. Arlen Specter (D) together with former President George W. Bush, Sestak redefined the choice Democratic primary voters face. Now it is Specter who will need to come from behind.

In Florida, Gov. Charlie Crist went from popular frontrunner in the GOP race to controversial also-ran in the Republican primary to Independent candidate in a matter of months. A year ago, nobody thought that could happen.

Similarly, in California, Republican Meg Whitman built up a large lead in the gubernatorial primary, only to see it largely evaporate when her opponent, state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, hit her in a TV ad for her association with Goldman Sachs.

Whitman’s 50-point lead in a March Public Policy Institute of California poll has fallen to 2 points in a recent SurveyUSA poll.

These kinds of reverses ought to make favorites and frontrunners feel uncomfortable, whether Democratic Senators such as Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas and Michael Bennet in Colorado or Republican Senate hopefuls Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire and Sue Lowden in Nevada.

On the other hand, I’m not yet a believer in some races where recent polls show tightening in general election ballot tests, including Senate races in Iowa and North Carolina. That’s because I expect the 2010 midterms ultimately will be a referendum on Democratic control of the White House and Congress, making for a very difficult political environment for Democratic challengers in both states in the fall.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on May 13, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

If Republicans Fail to Win the House, Look Behind the ‘Eight’ Ball

By Stuart Rothenberg

I’ve always said that the party campaign committees usually get too much credit for success and too much blame for failure, so I’m certainly not pointing fingers in this column. But if Republicans fall a handful of seats short of taking over the House in the fall midterms, it could be because of the party’s inability to recruit strong candidates in a short list of districts with highly vulnerable Democratic incumbents.

North Carolina’s 8th. Freshman Rep. Larry Kissell owes his membership in the Congressional fraternity to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which dragged him across the finish line in 2008. But if Kissell wins a second term, he ought to send a thank-you note to Tar Heel Republicans for failing to find a top-tier challenger in the best Republican year since 1994.

The DCCC spent just under $2.4 million to help elect Kissell — almost $1 million more than he spent on his own campaign. That made Kissell the second-largest beneficiary of DCCC independent expenditures, right behind New Hampshire Rep. Carol Shea-Porter.

The district, which stretches from Charlotte to Fayetteville and includes lots of rural territory in between, went narrowly for President Barack Obama in 2008 (52 percent) and more substantially for George W. Bush in 2004 (54 percent).

National Republican insiders aren’t writing off this race just yet, but they don’t have the challenger they once hoped for.

GOP insiders first tried to woo businessman Mike Minter, a former all-pro with the NFL’s Carolina Panthers, into the race. He ultimately decided against a bid. Then the National Republican Congressional Committee tried to coax former Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory into the contest. McCrory had recently lost a bid for governor and seriously considered the Congressional race. But he, too, said no.

The Republican field includes businessman Tim D’Annunzio, who calls Kissell a “socialist” in a video on his Web site and boasts endorsements from former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), activist Bay Buchanan, former sportscaster Harold Johnson and businessman Hal Jordan, who narrowly lost a state legislative race in 2006.

The favorite for the GOP nomination is Lou Huddleston, who spent three decades in the Army, retiring as a colonel in 2003. He, too, lost a state legislative race, in 2008, drawing 38 percent.

The Republican nominee may somehow ride a massive political wave to victory against Kissell. But unless that happens, this district will be the best example of a wasted GOP opportunity against a politically unimpressive, vulnerable House Democrat.

Georgia’s 8th. If Larry Kissell is at one end of the campaign quality spectrum, Rep. Jim Marshall (D) is at the other. Yet both constitute missed Republican opportunities.

Marshall is smart, cocky and politically astute. He got clobbered in his first run for Congress in 2000, but came back two years later to win an open seat. In 2006, he held off a former Congressman (who had represented part of the territory when the state’s districts were drawn differently) in a nail-biter.

Marshall defeated retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Rick Goddard (R) comfortably in 2008, 57 percent to 43 percent, and that may help explain why no top-tier challenger has stepped forward for 2010.

All of this is disappointing for GOP strategists given the nature of the district and the developing national Republican wave. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) carried the district with 56 percent in 2008, and Bush carried it in 2004 with 61 percent of the vote. In a year when voters may want to send a message to Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Republicans ought to have a candidate who can tap that voter sentiment in a district like Marshall’s. So far, they don’t.

Illinois’ 8th. Rep. Melissa Bean (D) is a tough adversary, like Marshall. She’s focused, politically astute and running in an expensive media market. But given her district and the kind of political year it may be, it’s hard to believe that Republicans came up empty-handed against her in 2010.

Her opponent this year is Joe Walsh (R), a favorite of tea party activists and an unsuccessful candidate for Congress (against then-Rep. Sidney Yates) in 1996 and for the state Legislature in 1998.

I don’t know if anyone can beat Bean this time, but her 6-point victory against David McSweeney (R) in a horrendous year for Republicans and her subsequent 20-point win over inept challenger Steve Greenberg (R) in a year when Obama was sweeping the state shouldn’t be enough to earn her a cakewalk in 2010. It has, however.

Wisconsin’s 8th. Finally, Republicans can’t be thrilled by their field against Rep. Steve Kagen (D). State Rep. Roger Roth, whose uncle served in Congress, could develop into a credible threat to Kagen, as could businessman Reid Ribble. Former state Rep. Terri McCormick and Door County Supervisor Marc Savard hope to do the same.

But no matter how you slice it, the Republican field in this GOP-leaning district doesn’t look particularly intimidating.

While McCain drew only 45 percent here in 2008, Bush won it with 55 percent four years earlier. Kagen barely won the open seat in 2006 but won it comfortably two years later. Still, given the national landscape, the district’s bent and Kagen’s personal style, a strong GOP challenger would put this district into play.

Right now, it’s not clear that the field includes a challenger who can win, though in a big Republican wave, even the current crop of contenders can’t be dismissed.


This column first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on April 15, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Print Edition: Pennsylvania 12 & North Carolina Senate

Subscribers already have the March 26, 2010 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report, but here are the introductions to this edition's stories:


Pennsylvania 12: Today’s Special
By Nathan L. Gonzales

After two House special elections in New York and the Senate special in Massachusetts, political junkies and handicappers risk burn out. But with the death of long-time incumbent Cong. John Murtha (D), Democrats and Republicans a gearing up with one eye on the special election in Pennsylvania’s 12th District and the other eye on dozens of races across the country that are coming into play. Subscribers get the the lay of the land, candidate bios, consulting teams, and how it plays out.

North Carolina Senate: Rerun or Reelection?
By Nathan L. Gonzales

Democrats think they’ve seen this movie before and they like the ending. Two years ago, they took aim at an incumbent GOP senator who was struggling to get to 50% in the competitive state of North Carolina. Democrats didn’t have a big name candidate and sorted through a primary, but won the race in the end.

After defeating Elizabeth Dole in 2008, Democrats have Richard Burr (R) in their sights this year. But this is turning out to be a fundamentally different cycle, and Burr had the benefit of watching Dole go down to defeat and has the opportunity to avoid her mistakes. Subscribers get the lay of the land, candidate bios, and Democratic primary and general election analysis.

The print edition of the Report comes out every two weeks. Subscribers get in-depth analysis of the most competitive races in the country, as well as updated House and Senate ratings, and coverage of the gubernatorial races. The print edition of the Report comes out every two weeks. Subscribers get in-depth analysis of the most competitive races in the country, as well as updated House and Senate ratings, and coverage of the gubernatorial races nationwide. To subscribe, simply click on the Google checkout button on the website or send a check.

Don’t Hold Your Breath for an Anti-Incumbent Election

By Stuart Rothenberg

Voters are angry, especially at Washington, D.C., and with politicians. They are unhappy with both parties. All that is generally true.

But voters’ dissatisfaction with those in charge doesn’t mean that November is likely to be an “anti-incumbent election.” In fact, it almost certainly won’t. We never, or almost never, have true anti-incumbent elections, as I have noted before.

If Republican incumbents have problems, it will be in their primaries.

In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry looked to have enough momentum to pull away from his GOP primary opponent, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. But that hasn’t happened. The Senator hasn’t been a scintillating candidate, but she is still very much in the game against the governor, according to knowledgeable insiders.

Perry won re-election four years ago with only 39 percent of the vote in a four-way race. While conservatives have rallied behind him, there are many in the Republican Party who don’t like his smugness and his shoot-from-the-hip style.

Arizona’s GOP governor, Jan Brewer, who became the state’s top officeholder when her predecessor joined the Obama administration, faces a roomful of primary challengers in her bid for a full term, and her prospects are uncertain. She inherited a terrible budget situation and was forced to select from a number of unappealing choices.

Indiana Rep. Dan Burton, South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis and Utah Sen. Bob Bennett also face challenges that have developed to a stage that make them worth watching.

Nonincumbent Republicans who have the mantle of the establishment are also vulnerable given the current environment.

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who is running for the state’s GOP Senate nomination, is the most obvious example. He faces a very difficult fight against former state Speaker Marco Rubio (R), who is running as the insurgent despite his previous position.

The same dynamic is taking place in New Hampshire, where conservative Ovide Lamontagne and two businessmen could give former state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte a migraine in the Republican Senate primary.

And in Kentucky, Rand Paul, son of Texas GOP Rep. Ron Paul (a former presidential candidate), is running as an outsider for the Republican Senate nomination against Secretary of State Trey Grayson, the favorite of virtually the entire state and the national Republican Party. GOP insiders think Grayson can win the primary, but they are far from certain about the outcome.

But if those incumbents (and establishment-backed nonincumbents) get past their primaries, they will then benefit from the public mood, which currently looks likely to punish Democrats at the ballot box.

A rash of recent polling, much of it paid for by liberal Web sites Daily Kos and Firedoglake, show Democratic incumbents in horrible shape — about where Republicans were in 2006 and 2008.

Surveys over the past couple of weeks have shown former Rep. Mike Sodrel (R) ahead of Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.) by 8 points, Andy Harris (R) leading Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-Md.) by 13 points, former Rep. Tim Walberg (R) leading Rep. Mark Schauer (D-Mich.) by 10 points and former Rep. Steve Chabot (R) leading Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio) by a whopping 17 points.

In addition, Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) leads unknown challenger Randy Altschuler (R) by only 2 points, while controversial Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is drawing 55 percent in an early ballot test against state Sen. Tarryl Clark (D).

Even if only most of these results are close to being accurate, they suggest that other Democratic House incumbents are seeing significant erosion in their numbers from what those same numbers were even a year ago.

Over in the Senate, Democratic numbers are equally terrible.

Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln and Nevada Sen. Harry Reid are sitting with unfavorable ratings larger than their favorable ratings. Former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who would be crushed if this year’s political environment resembled that of the 2006 or 2008 cycle, is running even or ahead of his potential Democratic opponents, and Democratic prospects over the past year have deteriorated in Ohio and Missouri.

Polling in North Carolina is particularly instructive. Recent surveys continue to show roughly equal numbers of respondents approving and disapproving of the job Sen. Richard Burr (R) is doing. But even with those mediocre numbers, Burr is holding clear (if unintimidating) leads over his potential general election opponents.

The bottom line on all of this seems pretty clear: Voters are not enamored of incumbents of either party, and GOP incumbents or “establishment” candidates facing strong “outsider” primary opponents could be in for more rough sledding than they would normally need to expect.

But when the general election rolls around, unless there is a significant change in the national mood, voter dissatisfaction will be aimed overwhelmingly at the candidates of one party. And that is why Democratic insiders are privately raising their own estimates of party losses.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on January 25, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

What a Difference a Year Makes: the 2010 Senate Outlook

By Stuart Rothenberg

As “Saturday Night Live” character Emily Litella (played by the late Gilda Radner) would say, “Never mind.”

Eleven months ago, still in the shadow of Barack Obama’s presidential victory over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Democrats looked likely to gain anywhere from two to as many as five additional Senate seats.

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) was in trouble, while GOP open seats in Florida and Missouri were clearly at risk. Doubts about the prospects of at least four other Republican incumbents — North Carolina’s Richard Burr, New Hampshire’s Judd Gregg, Louisiana’s David Vitter and Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter (who has since switched parties) — ranged from uncertain to unsettling for party strategists. And that was before Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) announced he would not run again.

But since then, GOP recruiting successes and a change in the national political environment have shifted the outlook for next year’s Senate contests. Suddenly, Democratic seats started to look more and more vulnerable.

As 2009 draws to a close, Democrats now could lose seats, a dramatic change from January that could end the party’s 60-seat majority in less than two years. And GOP gains could be large enough to sink any major Democratic initiatives not passed before Congress adjourns for the midterm elections.

The national Republican brand shows no signs of improving dramatically, but polling conducted in a number of the states with Senate contests next year shows GOP candidates doing better in hypothetical matchups recently than they were a few months earlier.

In Arkansas, for example, a Nov. 30-Dec. 2 Research 2000 poll for Daily Kos (D) showed Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) with a single point advantage over state Sen. Gilbert Baker, the apparent favorite for the GOP nomination. In early September, Lincoln had a much more substantial 44 percent to 37 percent advantage over Baker in another Daily Kos survey.

In Connecticut, a Nov. 3-8 Quinnipiac University poll showed former Rep. Rob Simmons, one of two serious contenders for the Republican Senate nomination, leading Sen. Chris Dodd (D) by 11 points, a larger lead than Simmons had in September (5 points), in July (9 points) or in May (6 points).

In New Hampshire, a Sept. 25-Oct. 2 University of New Hampshire survey found former state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, probably the favorite for the GOP Senate nomination, leading Rep. Paul Hodes (D) by 7 points (40 percent to 33 percent), while a June 24-July 1 UNH poll had Ayotte up by 4 points, 39 percent to 35 percent.

In Ohio, a Nov. 5-9 Quinnipiac poll found former Rep. Rob Portman (R) leading Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (D) 39 percent to 36 percent in a very competitive Senate trial heat pitting the two primary frontrunners against each other. In a Jan. 29-Feb. 2 Quinnipiac survey, Fisher held a commanding 42 percent to 27 percent advantage over Portman.

You can certainly quibble with any of these surveys or note that in some cases the movement is small, but the trend appears to be clear.

Other races, where there hasn’t been such movement, remain tight, with the race a statistical dead heat (in Missouri, for example), or with the Republican nominee holding a narrow advantage in most polling (including Kentucky, North Carolina, Illinois and Louisiana).

And in some contests, where there hasn’t been enough independent polling (or the same ballot tests repeated over time), Republicans look to be in much better shape than they ever could have hoped. Colorado is a good example, as is Pennsylvania.

Delaware remains an excellent GOP opportunity, and until Attorney General Beau Biden (D) actually announces that he will take on Rep. Mike Castle (R) in the open-seat Senate race, Democrats have to be at least a wee bit nervous.

Finally, I am struck how much Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) ballot test numbers resemble those of former Sens. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and John Sununu (R-N.H.), as well as soon-to-be-former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D). All three, of course, lost re-election bids.

Since a late July GOP poll, Reid has not exceeded 43 percent in a ballot test against a potential opponent, and he has generally drawn around 41 percent of the vote against his two most likely Republican challengers. His last lead was in a late November 2008 Daily Kos poll in which he had a 46 percent to 40 percent advantage over former Rep. Jon Porter (R), who has since taken himself out of consideration.

The overall shift in the psychology of the cycle may keep Democrats on the defensive and help Republican fundraising. And GOP nominees could well benefit from the fact that late tossups often break to one party, not evenly between the two parties.

A little more than four months ago, I wrote in this space (“Sizing Up the 2010 Senate Contests in the Summer of 2009,” Aug. 3) that for the first time this year I could “imagine a scenario where Democrats do not gain seats in 2010.” That has changed again, so that Republican Senate gains are now looking likely.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on December 14, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.

NC Senate: Will Marshall’s Senate Campaign Equal Her Recent P.R. Campaign?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Over the past few weeks, North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (D), who is challenging Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), has been on a public relations offensive.

First, there was a Lake Research Partners memo on incumbent Burr’s standing with state voters. Then there was a “Senate Primary Analysis” from Thomas Mills, who runs a North Carolina-based communications firm and works for Marshall, arguing that “in all likelihood, she will be the Democratic nominee.”

That was followed four days later by a memo from Public Policy Polling’s Tom Jensen reporting on the firm’s Nov. 23-24 poll showing that Marshall “is in a very strong position to win the Democratic nomination for the US Senate from North Carolina next year.” (PPP is a Democratic polling firm that isn’t working for Marshall.)

All of the hype about Marshall’s prospects coincided with a series of announcements by other Democrats opting out of next year’s Senate contest.

First, attorney Cal Cunningham, a former state Senator and Iraq War veteran, announced that he wouldn’t run, and then Rep. Bob Etheridge, who has been flirting with the race for months, announced that he, too, would take a pass.

For the moment, that has left attorney Ken Lewis and Marshall in the race for the Democratic nomination. But Democratic insiders predict that at least one other significant candidate will enter the Democratic contest — it now appears that Cunningham will reverse course and jump in — and that could affect Marshall’s prospects considerably.

Candidates, of course, are free to tell their story as they see it. But leaving obvious holes because all of the facts don’t fit the narrative cries out for someone to fill them.

The Mills memo emphasizes that Marshall has been elected secretary of state four times and “is very popular among Democratic activists, particularly women.” It also notes that women “do well” in Democratic primaries, pointing out that “four women running for statewide office in 2008” in North Carolina all won their primaries.

Even if that’s true, it leaves out something pretty important: Marshall already lost a Senate primary in 2002. She finished third, behind Erskine Bowles and state legislator Dan Blue, drawing only 15 percent.

There is nothing wrong with losing a primary, but if you are going to argue that “women do well” in North Carolina Democratic primaries — even citing the percentages of women who make up the Democratic electorate — you are opening yourself up to criticism. Maybe Mills should have said that “women often do well, though Elaine Marshall sometimes hasn’t.”

Jensen’s analysis notes that Marshall “starts out in a considerably better place than Senator Kay Hagan did” two years before her primary win. He then observes that PPP polling shows Marshall winning 42 percent to 7 percent for Lewis and 5 percent for Cunningham.

Of course, Marshall performs better now than Hagan did two years before her eventual election. Hagan was a state Senator then, while Marshall has been elected statewide four times and run statewide five times. And of course Marshall leads Lewis and Cunningham now, given the name-recognition disparities.

It isn’t until far down the memo that Jensen notes Marshall’s higher name ID and statewide experience. Obviously, Marshall’s name recognition isn’t irrelevant. It’s a reality that does give her an initial advantage in a primary. But it also explains all her strong numbers relative to Hagan and to other Democrats tested.

Finally, the Lake Research Partners memo is noteworthy because it comes from Marshall’s polling firm but merely regurgitates existing public polls of the race. It’s also extremely selective in choosing polls and poll data to use.

Both the PPP and Lake Research Partners memos assert that Burr is vulnerable. DSCC spokesman Eric Schultz said the same thing on Tuesday. Maybe Burr is, but he isn’t likely to lose. And while it’s too early to assert that Marshall can’t beat him, she would be a considerable underdog against him.

Democrats have carried the state in only two of the past 10 presidential contests, and in three of the past 10 Senate races. Yes, they won both in 2008, but the outcomes were close (Barack Obama won with 49.7 percent and Hagan with 52.7 percent) in the worst year for Republicans since Watergate.

While demographic changes may help Democrats over the next decade or two, the state still leans Republican for federal office in a neutral political environment. Since 2010 will be at least neutral — and more likely favoring the GOP — any Democrat will have a hard time ousting Burr.

Marshall, in particular, would have some problems.

While Mills’ memo points out that “in 2008, she amassed the second highest vote total in North Carolina history,” that statewide success is likely misleading.

I remember then-South Carolina State Superintendent of Education Inez Tenenbaum (D) telling me during her 2004 Senate race against then-Rep. Jim DeMint (R) that she was the biggest vote-getter in competitive statewide contests two years earlier (winning with 59 percent), which allegedly demonstrated her appeal.

I never bought that for a minute, because running for a federal office, with its highly charged ideological issues and inevitable partisan perspective, is very different from running for a downballot, uncontroversial statewide office. If you have any doubt about that, ask Tenenbaum, who drew just 44 percent against DeMint.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on December 3, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Sizing Up the 2010 Senate Contests in the Summer of 2009

By Stuart Rothenberg

Six months ago, the 2010 Senate battlefield looked relatively bare, with a few obvious skirmishes mostly in states with GOP incumbents. Three months later, the outlook had brightened dramatically for Democrats, largely the result of a number of GOP retirements and solid Democratic recruiting on those open seats.

But now, as the dog days of summer begin, the landscape has shifted again, this time improving significantly for Republicans.

Democrats no longer have the momentum they once possessed. Even more important, signs of some Democratic vulnerability have appeared, giving the National Republican Senatorial Committee opportunities to shoot at, rather than forcing it to play an entirely defensive game, as it has the past two cycles.

Fifteen months before the midterms, Democrats have major problems in two states — Illinois and Connecticut — while a third, Nevada, remains a potential headache. Republicans, on the other hand, have serious vulnerabilities in four states — Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire and Ohio — and potential problems in two others. But of late, even those Republican vulnerabilities look less daunting than they once did.

The announcement by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan (D) that she will seek re-election rather than run for the Senate (or governor) immediately boosted Republican prospects in what remains a very difficult state for the GOP. But Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) should be a formidable candidate, while Democrats have a field that is less than intimidating.

And in Connecticut, veteran Sen. Chris Dodd (D) has aired multiple TV ads in an attempt to remind Constitution State voters what he has accomplished and what he stands for — an open acknowledgment that he has work to do to repair his image. Republicans now worry that Dodd, who just announced he will have surgery for prostate cancer, will retire rather than seek re-election, thereby damaging their prospects of winning the seat.

Democrats have two formidable candidates in Kentucky, while Republicans recently received a gift from Sen. Jim Bunning (R) when the endangered two-term incumbent announced that he would not seek a third term. That means Secretary of State Trey Grayson will likely be the GOP nominee, dramatically increasing the chances that Republicans can retain the seat.

Former New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte (R) is moving toward a Senate bid in the Granite State’s open-seat contest, and while she is not yet a proven campaigner, insiders who know her speak effusively about her abilities and appeal. Democrats once viewed their likely nominee, Rep. Paul Hodes, as a solid favorite to win the seat, but the race now looks like a tossup, at best, for Democrats.

Meanwhile President Barack Obama’s sliding popularity is at least a troubling sign for Democrats in both Missouri and Ohio, where Republican Senate candidates may benefit from the public’s growing concerns about federal spending, possible tax hikes and bigger government.

Republicans still lack a top-tier challenger to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), and Sen. John Ensign’s (R-Nev.) recent personal troubles certainly don’t boost Republican prospects next year. Still, as the president’s point man in the Senate, Reid simply makes himself a juicy target in the midterm elections.

Democrats have potential opportunities in North Carolina and Louisiana, but they still have work to do in both. The party has not yet recruited a serious threat to Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), and while Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.) is widely rumored to be leaning toward a challenge to Sen. David Vitter (R), the state’s fundamentals and the midterm environment raise questions about the viability of the challenge.

Republicans have three longer-shot opportunities that shouldn’t yet be completely discounted — Arkansas, Colorado and Pennsylvania — though in each case the Democratic incumbent has a considerable advantage. Pennsylvania, in particular, is intriguing, since a truly nasty Democratic primary seems likely and the GOP nominee, former Rep. Pat Toomey, is not without appeal.

Eleven Republican and 12 Democratic Senate seats up next year now look safe. But if Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) decides to run for the Senate, as some GOP insiders now believe he will, another of those safe Democratic seats suddenly becomes a tossup.

Republicans would be wise not to celebrate just yet. Their diminished vulnerability is, in part, the result of Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter’s leaving the GOP, which cost them a seat that they probably were going to lose next year. And with Democrats controlling 60 of the Senate’s 100 seats going into next year’s elections, any additional Republican losses would add to the party’s existing woes.

The widely expected resignation of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) in the fall, which will lead to a special election in the first half of 2010, also creates some uncertainty. While Republicans will have a strong nominee and the NRSC will spend what it takes to hold the seat, the special election is at least a major distraction for the national GOP.

If politics is about momentum and message, then the outlook for ’10 has changed considerably over the past couple of months. Democrats still have a wealth of opportunities and some advantages, but Republicans now have momentum and an improving issue mix. For the first time this cycle, I can imagine a scenario where Democrats do not gain Senate seats in 2010.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on August 3, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

N.C. Controversy Reveals Perils of Reporting on Polls

By Stuart Rothenberg

One of the growing problems with political reporting is the explosion of polls and the tendency — particularly among local TV reporters and editors, cable TV hosts and bloggers — to report all of them as if they are equally reliable and newsworthy, and to draw dramatic conclusions from small subsamples and from statistically insignificant changes.

Polls receive so much attention that they become the focus of races — even if the actual races haven’t really started. This is true right now in North Carolina and Nevada, where Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Harry Reid (D-Nev.) look weak in early surveys even though they have not drawn heavyweight opponents.

Recently, Republicans have started complaining long and hard about polling conducted this cycle by Public Policy Polling in the Tar Heel State. They note, quite correctly, that PPP is a Democratic polling firm and that too many reporters fail to note their partisan bent. GOP insiders also complain about the firm’s sample, arguing that it often is too urban and too Democratic, and that its surveys understate Burr’s strength and his prospects for re-election.

If readers don’t know that PPP is a Democratic firm, they are reading the wrong publications. At the Rothenberg Political Report, we’ve regarded PPP as a Democratic firm, and identified it as such, since it has been around. In February, Roll Call reporter John McArdle wrote a lengthy article about PPP, calling it “a Democratic firm based in Raleigh” and referring to the company’s “controversial” methodology. National Journal’s Hotline also identifies PPP as a Democratic firm, as does the News & Observer (Raleigh).

It’s true that some newspapers don’t always note PPP’s Democratic credentials — including the Charlotte Observer, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the News-Topic (Lenoir, N.C.) — but that’s not PPP’s fault. Obviously, any reporter who fails to note the firm’s partisan bent is making an error, and Republicans have a legitimate gripe with them.

GOP efforts to discredit PPP because it is a Democratic firm are a different story. Yes, it’s important to note the firm’s partisan connections, and it’s not unreasonable to be wary, at least initially, of its numbers. But the fact that the polling firm works for Democrats doesn’t make its poll numbers inherently flawed.

In fact, the handful of us who have been reporting on and handicapping House and Senate races for many years tend to believe that partisan pollsters generally produce more reliable numbers than colleges and some newspapers. The key, of course, is to get them to share those numbers and to discuss them free of spin.

I personally have been slow to give PPP’s surveys a lot of credibility because of its interactive voice response methodology. Pollsters who are relatively new to political polling need to prove that they have a successful track record before they deserve to be taken seriously, and I haven’t been convinced that PPP has met that standard.

But PPP’s polling in this year’s Virginia Democratic gubernatorial primary was good, and a pollster whom I respect highly tells me that the firm’s poll numbers in North Carolina last year were good, as well. So dismissing PPP’s data out of hand seems unwise.

PPP puts its polls up on its Web site, including the demographics of each survey, so anyone who is interested can view those data and evaluate the sample. Of course, many people who talk about polls don’t pay any attention to the mechanics of polling or to individual samples, but that’s part of the broader problem that I already mentioned.

Ironically, in reporting on the North Carolina controversy recently, Politico mistakenly treated a seriously flawed Republican “poll” as if it were a legitimate public opinion survey. The Hotline made the same mistake, proving that even careful, politically astute journalists can miss things.

Politico’s article on PPP refers to Burr consultant Paul Shumaker and a “survey” conducted by his firm, Carolina Strategy Group, which appears to show the Senator somewhat better positioned for re-election than does PPP’s polling.

The problem is that many of the questions in that particular “poll” are loaded, discrediting the entire survey and making it look much worse than PPP’s approach. (Interestingly, Republican strategists aren’t complaining about it — or Republican or Republican-leaning pollsters who also produce survey results that sometimes seem mind-bogglingly outlandish.)

For example, instead of asking a straight Congressional job approval question, Shumaker’s survey asked, “Do you approve or disapprove of the job Congress is doing under the leadership of Senator Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi?”

National surveys increasingly show Pelosi is a divisive figure, so including a mention of her in the question could well distort the results about respondents’ attitudes about Congress. It could also poison the rest of the survey.

Two questions later, respondents are asked which Senate candidate, Burr or North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (D), would “better serve the people of North Carolina as a check and balance on the policies of President Obama.”

That question is followed immediately by a straight ballot test between Burr and Marshall. Unfortunately, the results from this question — which showed Burr ahead 52 percent to 37 percent — have been polluted by the previous questions, two of which included the “check and balance” language.

Rather than whining about PPP, Republicans might want to try to set the record straight in North Carolina by releasing their own poll by a credible, full-time polling firm. That would go a long way to helping develop a more balanced, more thoughtful narrative about the race.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on June 29, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Democrats Face Turnout Challenges in Key Districts in 2010

By Stuart Rothenberg

Democratic political strategists know that for all of their party’s advantages next year, they’ll almost certainly have significant turnout issues in more than a half-dozen highly competitive districts — even if President Barack Obama remains popular.

“Last cycle, our challenge was to make certain newly energized Obama voters continue to vote Democratic down the ballot. This time, our challenge is getting those same voters back out to vote again,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Executive Director Jon Vogel told me recently.

At least nine Democratic-held districts in five different states — Alabama’s 2nd (Rep. Bobby Bright) and 5th (Rep. Parker Griffith), Ohio’s 1st (Rep. Steve Driehaus) and 15th (Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy), North Carolina’s 8th (Rep. Larry Kissell), Virginia’s 2nd (Rep. Glenn Nye) and 5th (Rep. Tom Perriello), and Georgia’s 8th (Rep. Jim Marshall) and 12th (Rep. John Barrow) — could see a steep drop-off in the midterm among demographic groups that were energized by Obama’s candidacy and supported Democratic candidates across the board last cycle.

Eight of the districts have sizable African-American populations, including Ohio’s 1st district, which is more than one-quarter black and includes most of Cincinnati and Hamilton County.

The other district, Ohio’s 15th, is based in Columbus and includes Ohio State University, a huge source of young voters for the Obama campaign. (Younger voters are also important in Virginia’s 5th, which includes Charlottesville and the University of Virginia.)

African-Americans and college-age students turned out in considerable numbers for Obama, and it is far from clear whether they will do so again in the midterms. In fact, exit polls over the past few elections have shown that turnout for both groups has dropped in nonpresidential years.

For example, African-Americans made up 11 percent of all voters in 2004 and 13 percent of all voters in 2008, but only 10 percent of the 2006 midterm electorate. For younger voters, the drop-off is even more stark. Voters 18-29 years old constituted 18 percent of all voters in 2008 and 17 percent of all voters in 2004. But in the intervening 2006 midterm, they accounted for only 12 percent of all voters.

Along with the drop in turnout is the corresponding, but different, issue of vote choice. While black voters and 18-29-year-olds turned out in bigger numbers last year, they also gave a much greater percentage of their vote to Obama (and presumably to other Democratic candidates).

Without Obama on the ballot to bring out voters or define the overall election by his candidacy, it is uncertain how the two key voting groups will cast their ballots in individual contests. Some of these voters might return to their traditional voting preferences, especially if a number of Republican moderates are on the ballot.

Obviously, one huge question is how personally involved the president will become in the elections.

Obama has shown some limited willingness to play in some House and Senate races. Before his election, he recorded automated telephone calls for the Democratic nominee in last year’s special election in Louisiana’s 4th district and appeared in a TV ad for now-Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). More recently, he has played a role in the New York and Pennsylvania Senate races and headlined fundraisers for Senate candidates. He will do a joint fundraiser for the House and Senate campaign committees later this month.

On the other hand, the president has generally tried to stay above the partisan fray, preferring calls for unity and bipartisanship and avoiding heavily partisan rhetoric.

Democratic campaign strategists acknowledge that while they would be happy to have the president fully engage in the midterms, they cannot assume he will be greatly involved. So, they are planning their own efforts to mobilize Democratic voters.

DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) has already sat down with Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine to discuss how the two committees can coordinate their efforts to turn out Democrats next November.

Party insiders say their efforts will include targeting, messaging and building an infrastructure that will help national Democratic groups help Members’ campaigns to turn out key groups.

While strategists already can identify those districts where a drop-off in voting by African-Americans and younger voters could prove fatal to Democratic incumbents, the DCCC plans for much more elaborate targeting to allow the committee to communicate with those voters.

The DCCC also plans on investing resources into developing and refining its messaging to those voters. With the committee regarding “message” as an integral part of its field program, the DCCC is likely to engage in some extensive message testing to find out the best way to mobilize Obama voters who might otherwise sit out the midterm elections.

“For us,” Vogel says, “the question is what kind of message will get those voters to turn out.”

Finally, the DCCC will work with individual Members’ campaigns to build an infrastructure — and a tailored field campaign — in each district.

The DCCC’s recently hired national field director, Marlon Marshall, will play a key role in building organizations in key districts. Marshall, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) field director during the 2008 Democratic primaries, ran the Obama campaign’s Missouri field operation during the general election.

So far, GOP recruiting in districts that could see a drop in Democratic turnout has been promising. Former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) is running again, and Steve Stivers, who narrowly lost to Kilroy last time, appears likely to opt for a rematch. Republican candidates against Bright and Barrow appear formidable, at least initially.

The National Republican Congressional Committee will need to win a few of these districts if the party is going to gain seats next year. But their efforts won’t surprise the DCCC, which has already taken concrete steps to minimize any drop in turnout.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on June 4, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Polling in Perilous Territory

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Are Sens. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) or Richard Burr (R-N.C.) this cycle’s Rick Santorum?

The former Pennsylvania Senator began his 2006 re-election race down in the polls and never recovered. And while Bunning, Dodd and Burr have something in common with Santorum’s early standing, each hopes for a different outcome.

Whether it’s trailing in polls from the get-go, as was the case for Santorum and then-Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) in 2008, or leading but at the mid-40 percent mark in ballot tests like then-Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), all three recent cases demonstrated the difficulty for vulnerable Senators to significantly improve their standing over the course of a campaign.

Santorum trailed now-Sen. Bob Casey (D) 44 percent to 43 percent in a March 2005 Keystone poll and by a wider 49 percent to 35 percent margin in an April 2005 Quinnipiac University survey. Overall,

Santorum never led over the course of two years and lost on Election Day, 59 percent to 41 percent.

In New Hampshire last cycle, Sununu trailed former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D) 44 percent to 34 percent in a March 2007 American Research Group survey and trailed in all but one of 35 public polls over the course of the campaign, never topping 45 percent. He lost 52 percent to 45 percent on Election Day.

Of course, each Senate race has some unique characteristics, but Bunning, Dodd and Burr start their re-elections from a position of fundamental weakness.

Bunning’s vulnerability has been known since his narrow victory in 2004. An early Research 2000 survey in February 2009 for the liberal Daily Kos Web site showed Bunning defeating four potential Democratic opponents but still in the mid-40s on the ballot tests. Two months later, the former Hall of Fame pitcher trailed all four opponents and polled in the low to mid-30s, according to a survey by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling.

Dodd’s vulnerability started with headlines and then was realized when a Quinnipiac poll in February showed that 51 percent of Connecticut voters would probably not or definitely not vote to re-elect the Democrat and that more people disapproved (48 percent) than approved (41 percent) of the job that he is doing.

A month later, Quinnipiac showed Dodd in a dead heat with former Rep. Rob Simmons (R), 43 percent to 42 percent. Later in March, a Research 2000 poll had slightly better news, with Dodd besting Simmons 45 percent to 40 percent.

“Their numbers are so bad that it goes well beyond the environment,” said one GOP strategist speaking on the condition of anonymity so that he could speak freely about Dodd and Bunning.

“It doesn’t matter if Obama finds a cure for cancer, Dodd is not coming back to the U.S. Senate,” he added, while predicting that Bunning would lose, too.

In North Carolina, Burr has consistently polled between 37 percent and 46 percent in ballot tests conducted this year by the PPP, which is based in the state. The Republican has led some potential Democratic opponents and trailed state Attorney General Roy Cooper, the party’s top prospect who has yet to announce his intentions. But Burr’s standing is more important than the margin.

Last cycle, Democrats hypothesized that Smith had an electoral ceiling in the mid-40s, and that’s why they weren’t discouraged even when their February 2007 survey showed him ahead of Rep. Peter DeFazio (D) 42 percent to 38 percent. Smith consistently polled in the low 40s throughout the race and received 46 percent on Election Day.

Supporters of Dodd and Burr maintain that the incumbents’ initial numbers are soft because they are still undefined in the voters’ minds.

Considering the significant recent population growth of North Carolina, it’s an easier argument for Burr to make after one term in office. But that doesn’t make him any less vulnerable. He had an extremely low 37 percent favorable/13 percent unfavorable rating in a mid-March poll for the Civitas Institute (R). Plus, he’s running in a tossup state that President Barack Obama carried very narrowly.

For Dodd, it’s much tougher to redefine himself after representing the state for almost three decades. He had 91 percent name identification in Quinnipiac’s March poll (46 percent favorable/45 percent unfavorable) and 87 percent name identification in the March survey by Research 2000 (47 percent favorable/40 percent unfavorable).

In the spring of the year before their losses, Santorum’s name identification was 60 percent while Sununu was closer to 70 percent.

Vulnerable incumbents tend to overestimate their ability to define their race as a choice between two candidates. This cycle, Democrats will attempt to tie Simmons to former President George W. Bush, former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, while Republicans will try to use Cooper’s record against him and declare whomever winds up the Democratic nominee in Kentucky too liberal for the state.

But it doesn’t always work. In the previous cycle, Sununu was confident that the race would shift once he refocused voters on Shaheen’s record as governor — the message that helped him defeat her six years earlier. Santorum, Sununu and Smith spent a combined $45 million trying to reframe their races to no avail.

Bunning and Dodd will likely watch the other party compete in a competitive primary, when Santorum and Sununu’s challengers had clear paths to the nomination. But that doesn’t guarantee success either, since the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee helped drag now-Sen. Jeff Merkley (Ore.) through the primary last cycle before he knocked off Smith.

But while Santorum, Sununu and Smith ran in states trending against them, Bunning and Dodd are running for re-election in more favorable territory. Obama carried Connecticut with 61 percent and Oregon with 57 percent, while Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) carried Kentucky with 58 percent.

Democrats believe this is most significant for Dodd, who simply needs to remind Democratic voters about the good things that the Senator has done for them. “I would much rather have to win back Democrats than have to win over Republicans,” Dodd campaign manager Jay Howser said.

And while Santorum and Sununu ran into a political headwind, next year’s political environment is uncertain. “Political die is not cast yet on next year’s election,” said one GOP strategist familiar with Burr’s race.

Still, using recent history as a guide, the longer an incumbent is mired at less than 50 percent, the more difficult it becomes to break out on Election Day.

This story first appeared in Roll Call on April 23, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

National Mood Isn't Always Visible on the Ground

By Stuart Rothenberg

Polls show that the nation’s political winds are not changing. President Barack Obama is up, while Republicans are down — and spending more time on trivial matters such as Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele than on rebuilding their brand.

The past couple of months have also seen some significant campaign developments that are affecting the two parties’ outlooks for 2009 and 2010 — not always as expected.

The special election in New York’s 20th district has become a barnburner, with Republican Jim Tedisco holding only the slightest (and statistically insignificant) advantage over Democrat Scott Murphy in the fast-approaching March 31 special election. For Republicans, the special election to replace appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) looks to be repeating a troubling pattern.

Even though the district leans Republican, soft GOP voters who like Obama are not embracing Tedisco. Some have gravitated to Murphy, who is young, has money to put into the race and has no legislative record, while others are undecided.

Tedisco has served in the state Assembly for years, and that makes him easily branded as a “typical politician,” which is exactly what a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee TV ad calls him.

One GOP insider whom I spoke with recently said the race “doesn’t look good,” in part because Murphy has been “rolling up the score” among independents. But strategists from both parties expect a close finish, and turnout, as is often the case in special elections, will determine the winner. A loss for Republicans would be demoralizing, but it could happen.

At the same time that Democratic prospects in the New York special election are brightening, the party’s prospects in the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial elections later this year are dimming.

Gov. Jon Corzine (D) is now running behind former U.S. attorney Chris Christie, the GOP’s likely nominee, in the Garden State, and tough economic conditions, which are not likely to improve in the short run, are forcing Corzine to make unappealing choices.

In Virginia, the crowded race for the Democratic nomination is allowing former state Attorney General Bob McDonnell to run free and clear, and to define himself.

Six months down the road, these two state races could look very different, but right now it appears unlikely that Democrats can retain both governorships. That would give Republicans something to crow about in November, and a sweep would certainly boost the GOP mood across the country heading into 2010.

Republicans caught a break in Kansas when Obama selected Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) for his Cabinet. Her confirmation will virtually guarantee that Republicans will hold the open Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) in order to run for governor.

In Connecticut, local media continue to raise questions about Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd’s past financial arrangements, and former Rep. Rob Simmons (R) is now widely expected to enter the Senate race against him.

Any Senate contest in the Nutmeg State is difficult for the GOP, and Dodd is a formidable foe, even with his depressed poll numbers. Still, this Senate contest wasn’t expected to be worth watching, so Dodd’s electoral problems are a welcome windfall for Republicans.

In Florida, Gov. Charlie Crist (R) is more likely than not to jump into the Senate race.

Normally, the governor’s office in almost any state is seen as a refuge from the partisanship of Capitol Hill. But the Sunshine State faces the same fiscal problems that other states do, and the next governor will have to make unpopular decisions. That might make the Senate look relatively appealing to Crist.

In any case, Democratic recruiting for the state’s Senate race has, at least so far, not been all that intimidating, leaving Republicans feeling better about their prospects of retaining retiring Sen. Mel Martinez’s open seat.

Ohio looks to be another dogfight, but the race took an unfortunate turn for Democrats when both Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner decided to seek the Democratic nomination. The primary could enhance the chances of former Rep. Rob Portman, the likely GOP Senate nominee.

While recent developments have caused Democrats a few problems, the party has reason to feel increasingly confident about its chances of taking open Senate seats in Missouri and New Hampshire.

The prospect of a bitter GOP primary in Missouri between Rep. Roy Blunt and former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman — with the winner facing Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D) — is making GOP strategists nervous. Blunt has the backing of most insiders, but given his years in the House leadership and the problems that his son, Matt, had as governor, the conservative Steelman’s “outsider” message of reform might resonate.

Democratic prospects in Kentucky also are bright now, as GOP efforts to ease Sen. Jim Bunning (R) out of the race have backfired. With Democrats likely to nominate either Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo or state Attorney General Jack Conway for the Senate contest, GOP prospects of retaining the Bunning seat are not good.

In North Carolina, state Attorney General Roy Cooper (D) seems genuinely interested in challenging Sen. Richard Burr (R). Burr should run a far better race than then-Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R) ran last cycle, and the midterm electorate should not be as favorable for Cooper as it was for now-Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.). Still, a Burr-Cooper contest would be a titanic struggle, giving Senate Democrats another serious opportunity.

Finally, the Pennsylvania Senate race looks messier each day. Conservative Pat Toomey now seems likely to repeat his 2004 primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter (R), and Specter’s chances of surviving this time are worse than they were six years ago, when he won renomination with 50.8 percent.

Specter’s chances for winning a primary would be improved, of course, in a multicandidate race, and conservative, anti-abortion activist Peg Luksik said last week that she’s getting into the GOP contest. Any votes she gets almost certainly would be anti-Specter voters peeled away from Toomey.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on March 16, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Republicans Turn to ‘No Blank Check’ in Final Days

By Nathan L. Gonzales

With Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) White House prospects dimming and just days to go before the elections, Republicans are turning to a “no blank check” strategy in an effort to minimize their losses in the House and Senate.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has been hammering the "no blank check" theme in TV ads in North Carolina, where Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R) is in a tough fight with state Sen. Kay Hagan (D).

“Who’s the Senate race really about? Hagan or Dole? Neither one,” the announcer says in one spot. “It’s about liberals in Washington. They want complete control of the government. They spent $10 million dollars on a hoax,” with a picture of Hagan on the screen.

“The left wants 60 votes in the Senate. To push radical cuts to our military. Massive tax increases. Liberal judges. And expand welfare,” the ad continues. “Kay Hagan, if she wins, liberals get a blank check.”



This week, the NRSC continued the same themes in Louisiana, with an ad attempting to label Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) as corrupt, liberal and someone who has voted with presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) more than 80 percent of the time.

“Don’t give Washington liberals complete control. Don’t give them a blank check,” says to the NRSC spot, which hinges on the notion that Louisiana is one state where Obama won’t do well on Election Day.



The “no blank check” strategy is also creeping into House races. Republican businessman Chris Hackett sounded the theme in an ad that began airing Monday. Hackett is running against freshman Rep. Christopher Carney (D) in Pennsylvania’s 10th district.

“What if Washington becomes controlled at all levels by big-government Democrats? It could happen this election. One party dominance can be very dangerous,” the ad begins.

Hackett’s ad then features Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the Keystone State’s popular senior Senator, talking straight to the camera.

“I am very concerned about one-party rule in Washington,” Specter says in the spot. “That’s why it’s so important to elect Chris Hackett to Congress. With Chris Hackett, we’ll have a check against massive Democratic control. And that’s vital for our country.”



In the Minnesota Senate race, Democrats are making the opposite case.

“We don’t have a lot of time to turn our economy around. And it’s going to take a new president and 60 Senators willing to stand up for change. Now, any single Republican can block the progress we need,” Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said in a TV ad done for the Democratic nominee. “Al Franken could very well be that 60th vote. I hope you’ll vote for Al Franken. Let’s end the gridlock and get our country moving.”



This story first appeared on RollCall.com on October 29, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Stu Talks Bill Clinton, Blank Checks, and the RNC's new radio ads on CNN.com

RNC, GOP tweak tactics to lure conservative Democrats

By Stuart Rothenberg and Nathan L. Gonzales

(CNN) -- While many in the media are single-mindedly focused on vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's outfits, Republican efforts to brand Sen. Barack Obama a socialist and the chances that Democrats will net nine Senate seats (giving them 60 seats in the next Senate), some other interesting things are going on -- things that are being missed.

One of those is an unreported major Republican National Committee radio buy in eight key states: Colorado, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia.

The buy is interesting because it includes some states expected to be in McCain's column by this time (Montana, North Carolina and West Virginia, for example), but also because of the message of the 60-second spot: gun control. Read the rest of the story on CNN.com.

Three hot states to watch on Election Night

By Nathan L. Gonzales and Stuart Rothenberg

(CNN) -- With the presidential campaign and more than 75 competitive races for the House and Senate, keeping track of it all on Election Day can be a bit overwhelming. But focusing on three states (North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida) will provide a window through the November 4 election chaos. Read the whole story on CNN.com.

GOP House candidates struggle against McCain drag

By Nathan L. Gonzales and Stuart Rothenberg

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Chris Shays of Connecticut, the last Republican in the House of Representatives from New England, is used to running against the partisan tide. But this year, the wave might be too high for the Republican congressman to overcome.

Shays is just one of many GOP candidates trying to win by outperforming Sen. John McCain's underwhelming performance in congressional districts nationwide. Read the rest of the story on CNN.com.

GOP May Target Mahoney Media Firm in Other Districts

By Nathan L. Gonzales

With Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-Fla.) embroiled in an alleged sex scandal, Republicans are putting on the full-court press to broaden the scandal to other districts by implicating House Democratic leadership — and, potentially, Mahoney’s former media firm.

According to the initial ABC News report, Mahoney allegedly promised his mistress a $50,000-a-year job with his media consultant’s firm, Fletcher Rowley Chao Riddle Inc., as part of a package to keep her from going public about their affair.

”This firm is attempting to disassociate itself from its seemingly unethical and potentially illegal behavior because they realize that many of their clients are sitting in targeted districts,” according to one GOP operative, “This is a liability that will undoubtedly be explored."

The Nashville-based FRCR received plenty of good press earlier this year by helping Democrat Travis Childers win the special election in Mississippi’s 1st district. Childers is at limited risk of losing his seat next month, but some of the firm’s other candidates are in much more competitive races.

FRCR works with Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) who knocked off then-Rep. Richard Pombo (R) in 2006 and faces Dean Andal (R) this cycle, as well as teacher Larry Kissell (D), who is in a rematch with Rep. Robin Hayes (R) in North Carolina’s 8th district. Long-shot challenger Jim Harlan (D) in Louisiana’s 1st is also a client.

Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio) is another FRCR candidate, but Republicans failed to recruit a good candidate to take him on.

Once the Mahoney story broke, his media firm sought to sever all ties with the Congressman.

“FRCR Inc. has resigned from Tim Mahoney’s campaign and permanently ended our relationship with him,” CEO Bill Fletcher said. “According to ABC News, Tim Mahoney apparently included our company in a secret legal settlement without the knowledge of our firm. Our firm did not agree to any legal settlement. If these allegations are true, Tim Mahoney’s actions are unacceptable and not in line with FRCR’s business ethics.”

It may be too little too late to stop Republicans from pressing the issue.

UPDATE: In 2007, McNerney switched to McMahon, Squier, Lapp for media. On Thursday, the NRCC sought to make FRCR an issue against candidates in more districts including Don Cravins Jr. (LA7), Lincoln Davis (TN4), Tom Perriello (VA5), Paul Carmouche (LA4), and Joshua Segall (AL3).

This story first appeared on RollCall.com on October 15, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Candidate Gets Very Early Start

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Rick Hendrix announced his 2010 campaign for Congress a few weeks ago. But his campaign is off to an unconventional start — beginning with the fact that he hasn’t chosen a district to run in yet.

That hasn’t stopped the entertainment industry insider from promoting his candidacy, however.

“After his speech to a corner of celebrities and political icons during Vanity Fair and Google’s exclusive, elaborate blowout finale [at the Democratic National Convention], few are left in the dark of Mr. Hendrix’s plans and aspiration as he draws a sharp distinction between his political career and his lifelong dedication as a Christian,” began a news release that announced Hendrix’s campaign soon after the convention.

“Minds are wondering and circles have been a buzz for months concerning his shift and almost hierarchy acceptance into the political dynasties of the Democratic Party,” the oddly worded release continued.

Hendrix, 38, was born and raised in Granite Falls, N.C., a town of about 4,600 people on U.S. 320 between Lenoir and Hickory. Granite Falls is in North Carolina’s 10th district, where attorney Daniel Johnson (D) is taking on Rep. Patrick McHenry (R) this fall.

As owner of the Rick Hendrix Co., the self-proclaimed “#1 Promoter in American Music” handles one-third of all Christian and “positive” music on American radio, promoted the film “The Passion of the Christ” and built an “empire that has generated a quarter of a billion record sells [sic] since the 90’s,” according to his Web site.

The Next Barack Obama?

Hendrix’s Congressional announcement was buried at the end of a Sept. 19 Washington Post article about his efforts to team with Burns Strider, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) faith adviser, to reach out to potential Democratic voters through Christian radio. Hendrix was a part of Clinton’s Faith Outreach Committee during the presidential primary, and he was a pledged at-large delegate for the Senator in Denver.

He is also partnering with Strider and former Hill aide Eric Sapp of the Eleison Group to form Faithful Media, a for-profit endeavor designed to “provide unprecedented services and support to progressive causes and Democratic candidates.”

Hendrix might be one of the beneficiaries.

“Hendrix made his political aspirations clear to party notables such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Madeleine Albright, John Kerry, General Wesley Clark, and the Clintons,” according to his initial release, which read like a news story.

Pictures of Hendrix with Democratic luminaries are available on his MySpace page, including him “escorting” Albright and Kerry out of the Google party.

The release, which was long on name-dropping and short on substance, also compared now-Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) 2004 coming-out party at the Democratic convention in Boston to Hendrix’s 2008 appearance in Denver.

“After this year’s Democratic National Convention showcase of the party’s new and rising young stars, many Democrats are hoping that lightning will strike twice with Rick Hendrix,” the release said.

By announcing his candidacy so early, Hendrix is similar to Obama, since Obama, then a state Senator, began his 2004 U.S. Senate bid before the 2002 elections.

But Hendrix continues to be a candidate without a district. It appears he wants to run in the 10th district, but Johnson is already challenging McHenry, and while he is a distinct long shot, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee recently added Johnson to its “Red to Blue” list, which should boost his fundraising.

For now, Hendrix is playing the part of a loyal party foot soldier and supporting Johnson’s candidacy. Hendrix considered temporarily turning his 2010 campaign Web site into a blog for Johnson’s cause, even though the two men have only traded messages and have never spoken.

“Mr. Hendrix is definitely supporting Daniel’s campaign, and I think it says a lot about what’s going on here in western North Carolina that high-profile people like Mr. Hendrix are getting involved in this race,” said Lauren Moore, Johnson’s deputy campaign manager.

Where Is Home?

Even if Hendrix had a clear shot at the 10th district, now or in 2010, it would not be easy. He was born and raised in the district, but it’s unclear where he lives now.

The Rick Hendrix Co. has offices in Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Nashville, Tenn. Hendrix said in an interview that he lives in Granite Falls and commutes to Nashville, where his kids attend school (he is divorced).

But he lists Nashville as home on his MySpace page, where 30 photos of “My Nashville Home” are available.

“He hasn’t lived here in 20 years,” said one Democratic operative in the Tar Heel State.

Another challenge would be the district itself. The 10th district takes in all or part of 10 counties in western North Carolina and gave President Bush 67 percent of the vote four years ago. The district has also sent a Republican to Congress for the past four decades.

McHenry, 32, was first elected in 2004 to fill the seat vacated by GOP Rep. Cass Ballenger and was re-elected with 62 percent last cycle. He is a reliable Republican vote and enjoys being combative, but he broke with his party by voting against the Central American Free Trade Agreement in 2005.

Hendrix’s friends in the national Democratic Party — he calls Pelosi one of his “favorite people in the world” — may not be as popular in the district.

“When the curtain pulls, I can see my mama voting Republican,” Hendrix half-joked, showing some instincts about his family and the district.

“You can be a Democratic candidate and serve well without being as red as your constituency,” Hendrix said in a phone interview, adding that he thought the Clintons were a “50/50 split” in the district. “I would not hide from them because of a poll.”

Former President Bill Clinton lost the district by 20 points to Bob Dole in 1996. So why run?

“This is a new door I feel opening,” Hendrix said. “There is a learning curve for all of us. Democrats have never tried this, and I’ve never tried the political thing before.”

Going National, Tapping Employees

It’s clear that the first-time candidate will have to work to transition from promoter to candidate.

Congressional candidates don’t usually launch their bids three years in advance for a two-year term, particularly without a district.

“This is a year if you are a Democrat you’ve got a get-out-of-jail-free card with Republicans who [traditionally] don’t like the Democratic agenda,” Hendrix said about the timing of his announcement.

RickHendrixforCongress.com is live, but with minimal information.

“Thank you for stopping by. An exploratory committee has been formed for Rick Hendrix and the 2010 mid-term elections,” it says on the site. According to Hendrix, he has filed an exploratory committee with the Federal Election Commission, but he is not yet raising money for a Congressional bid.

The Web site directs visitors to the “Rick Hendrix for Congress National Headquarters,” based in Washington, which could be a first for a Congressional candidate.

Most candidates are running away from D.C. these days, but Hendrix said that even though the national headquarters is not finalized, it could be a natural fit because of all the business that he conducts in Washington already.

“We serve ourselves well by having it there,” Hendrix said, “We need to be in big places and not be afraid.”

Currently, the line between Hendrix’s campaign and his company appears to be nonexistent. The contact phone number for Hendrix’s campaign is the same number listed for his company’s D.C. office. A call placed to the number was answered with an ambiguous, “Rick Hendrix’s office.” And two different staff contacts on the campaign news releases use the phone number as well as company e-mail addresses.

As his campaign ramps up, those distinctions will need to be made, because corporate campaign contributions are illegal and Democrats have been particularly critical over the past few years of Republican businessmen allegedly using their companies to leverage their campaigns.

For now, it’s all a part of Hendrix’s plan.

“We’ll engage the whole company,” Hendrix said, referring to his 2010 bid. “Anyone who works for me will work for the campaign.”

If employees do not want to be involved in the campaign (Hendrix estimates that number to be 20 to 30 out of more than 150), then they can keep their jobs on the music side, according to the candidate.

Official Launch Coming Soon

In general, Hendrix is banking on scores of people helping him after years of promoting and helping others. He believes that all or most of the 700 musical artists (about 70 percent of whom are Christian) that he represents will do fundraisers and concerts on his behalf.

Their willingness may not matter. “Hendrix has demanded that his musician clients let him stage rallies or set up informational tables for Democrats at or near their shows, whether they like it or not,” according to the Washington Post story, which highlighted some of Hendrix’s efforts during the presidential primary. “About half his artists are fine with that, he says, while the others agree somewhat reluctantly.”

Listening to Hendrix, you get the feeling that he is running a national campaign for Congress. Although it’s just in the preliminary stages, it sounds like the most massive Congressional campaign ever assembled.

His effort could officially launch as soon as Jan. 1, with the help of Strider and Sapp’s Eleison Group. Hendrix wants to go into the race with $4 million, hire “major advisers” and have an army of 10,000 volunteers. He’s also talking about 300 billboards, fliers in power bills and a book tour of 600 locations in three months during the campaign.

Hendrix plans to couple the massive e-mail list he’s built over the years with consumer information for micro-targeting. He also plans to reach out to the 34.5 million MySpace friends stretched across his 700 musical artists.

“As the night went on, Hendrix found the small posse he arrived with had blossomed into a room of the world’s most notable figures and their eyes and ears were fixed on his every word, jokes and smiles,” Hendrix’s announcement news release read. “Actress Anne Hathaway said, ‘Rick inspires and excites me about the future of our party.’”

The political world may not be ready for Rick Hendrix.

This story first appeared in Roll Call on October 9, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Why is Dole Vulnerable and Not Collins?

By Stuart Rothenberg and Nathan L. Gonzales

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two years ago, as the 2007-2008 election cycle was beginning, one female Republican senator up for re-election looked to be in serious danger: Maine's Susan Collins.

But with just three weeks left until Election Day, the moderate Collins now appears to be one of the few embattled Republican senators who could survive the forthcoming Democratic wave.

On the other hand, North Carolina's Elizabeth Dole, once regarded as a lock for re-election, looks as if she is about to fall at the hands of Democratic challenger Kay Hagan.

How did Dole become more endangered than Collins? You can read the rest of the story on CNN.com.

Two Democrats Earn Top Score From Conservative Group

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Two socially conservative groups unveiled their vote ratings this week, and a couple of Democrats made the list of House Members with perfect scores during the 110th Congress.

FRC Action and Focus on the Family Action released their Vote Scorecard, rating Members on 17 votes deemed critical to the groups’ causes. Votes on hate crimes, federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research and abortion, and religious liberty were included, among others.

In all, 107 House Members were given “True Blue” status by “voting for families 100 percent of the time.”

“Thanks goes out to this bipartisan bunch for standing up for families,” FRC Action President Tony Perkins wrote in an e-mail update on Monday. Six years ago, Perkins ran unsuccessfully for the Senate as a Republican in Louisiana.

Not surprisingly, the “bipartisan bunch” consisted of 101 House Republicans and just six Democrats.

North Carolina Reps. Heath Shuler (D) and Mike McIntyre (D) voted with FRC Action and Focus on the Family Action on all 17 votes during the 110th Congress.

Democratic Reps. Donna Edwards (Md.), André Carson (Ind.), Don Cazayoux (La.) and Travis Childers (Miss.) were also included as “True Blue.” But the four Members were elected in special elections this year and were only in Congress for one of the 17 votes.

Some other Democrats scored well but fell short of the perfect score. Mississippi Rep. Gene Taylor earned a 94 percent rating, Georgia Rep. Jim Marshall an 88 percent, and Reps. Collin Peterson (Minn.) and Lincoln Davis (Tenn.) both received 82 percent.

This story first appeared on RollCall.com on September 30, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.